Why is it that we put up with chronic hypocrisy in law?

One of the prime examples is clothing-optional beaches. They are illegal in Queensland. But they are everywhere, up and down the coast! The police know about them, local councils know, the state government knows and adjacent communities know.

How can this situation possibly exist? Why isn’t this reality brought into line with the law, or vice versa? What sort of a complete mockery of the rule of law do we have when a black and white law is just completely ignored by all the relevant authorities?

If nude beaches were formalised, as they have been in other states for decades, they’d have signs put up so that everyone knows about them. But as it is now, most don’t have any signs whatsoever, so people can walk into them without knowing. You can often encounter a lot more confronting stuff than just some old bloke lying on the beach baring his bum to the sun!

On the other hand, I’ve seen young women and families with small kids in the close presence of naked men without any concern at all being shown. So if this is the general case, then why can’t all beaches be clothing optional?

http://www.qldbeaches.com/nude.html

The nude beach at Buchans Point, Cairns, is really quite extraordinary. It is in full view of houses on the headland and from traffic on the Cook Hwy. People in south-bound vehicles can easily see naked people on the beach, only about 30 metres away! When I was down there recently, there were numerous car horns, offensive comments from young males and screams from young females, coming from the highway.

So again, if a nudist beach can be allowed to exist under circumstances like this, then why can’t nude beaches be formalised, and become widespread?

How is a person to know what is acceptible and what isn’t when there is such utter duplicity in the law and the policing regime?

Tit's a serious problem up at Buchan's obviously. Trinity and Yorky's used to be the spots - too many mozzies at Buchan's, but I suppose development never stops.

Replace "nude beaches" with something that actually matters, and there might be something here to debate.

It might be Ludwig that QLD Tourism accepts anything for the great dollar.
Cops might be too few because the QLD doesnt want to spend the money.
Cops all over Australia are so flat out and worse is coming.
Ever see Escape from New York?
Thats a "vision" our of the big cities if there are no more police hirings.

Dear Ludwig,

From what I've seen on our beaches,
I'd say clothing is already "optional."
And to some who really should cover up...

As for why the law is not being enforced - I think
that the following joke may possible give you the
answer:

An old farmer had a huge property up north on
which he grew apple and peach trees. And out the back
he'd designed a pond for swimming.

One evening the old farmer decided to go down to the
pond. He grabbed his hat and a bucket to
bring back some fruit.

As he got nearer to the pond, he was amazed to hear
the sound of laughter and shouting. When he emerged from
behind a peach tree, he saw five gorgeous teenage
girls skinny-dipping in his pond. As soon as they
saw him, they squealed in alarm and hid themselves in
the deep end.

"We're not coming out until you leave!" one of them shouted.

The old man frowned. "Look here, girls, I didn't come
here to watch you swimming naked in my pond. I'm just here
to feed my crocodile. Don't mind me."

"CROC -ODILE!!" The girls screamed in unison. All five shrieked
with fright and scrambled out of the pool.

"Here let me help you out," said the old man, putting his
arm around the prettiest girl.

Which goes to prove that old men who don't move so quickly can
still think fast and enjoy naked beauty.

The same may apply to Council Officials and Legal Enforcement Officers. :)

"What sort of a complete mockery of the rule of law do we have when a black and white law is just completely ignored by all the relevant authorities?"

God, lighten up. Who gives a toss? (apart from Gibo's dodgy mates in the sand dunes).

Antiseptic

Tits not a problem at Buchans Point. There aren’t any. Only dirty old flabby-gutted men and gayboys…..oow and occasionally trim taut and terrific heterosexual Ludwig! Alright, and probably a few others who just like the freedom of being naked in wide open spaces without having to care about who might see their dangly bits.

Or maybe I should have written: Tits a problem at Buchans Point because there aren’t any!!

Sancho

The thing that matters is the hypocrisy in the rule of law, between what is enshrined in legislature and law books and what is accepted by the police, authorities and community. Example number two then – speed limits and other road rules. Think about it.

Gibo

Maybe it is condoned with tourism in mind in some cases. The nude beach at Balding Bay on Magnetic Island is certainly popular with tourists. But this doesn’t for one moment excuse our government from formalising nude beaches or bringing the law into line with accepted practices, does it?

SIG,
"Who gives a toss"?

We all should be concerned that laws are applied properly and I can see Ludwig's point although his example of nudity on beachese does not affect me.

Here's another example. FGM is against the law in all states yet there is evidence that possibly hundreds of young Aussie girls have endured this practice. The evidence is freely available from hospital records where treatment has been sought for post FGM problems. Yet not one person or parent has been charged in relation to this. Possibly some charges will be laid when a girl or two dies from FGM.

On the other hand groups of people that carry out cockfighting are regularly raided and charges laid.

Both activities are cruel and yet it seems cruelity to roosters is more important than cruelity to girls. The hypocrocy is obvious.

Or is one ethnic group being favoured by exemption from the law and another targeted.

If we are not prepared to uphold the law in some instances, then the laws must be changed. If we accept public nudity on beaches then it should not be a crime.

My impression is that it gives pollies more power. If at some stage it suits (an important campaign supporter wants to build a development nearby etc) them to shut down a particular unofficial nude beach they can do with little hassle, the activity is already illegal so no laws need to be changed. On the other hand whilst people know that they are unlikely to be prosecuted for using one of the unofficial beaches most won't be to bothered by the legality issue so it's difficult for the free beach movemnet to gather the momentum for change.

A polly who advicates for free beaches is likely to find those with a passion for body taboo's making life difficult for them. Legal free beaches are currently a no-win proposition for pollies as is shutting the unofficial ones down. Hence the status quo.

R0bert

The coppers are having dramas keeping up with keeping the peace as it is. Right now they have to prioritise what sort of rubbish they want to wade in to. When they get more than enough police to take care of the life and death stuff they'll start picking at things like people not wearing duds on some beach.

Last time I saw, at the Gold Coast police stations there were about 10 vacancies at EACH one.

There are THOUSANDS of laws that are worthy of attention, but until they get the wo/manpower things like this globally and socially insignificant whine won't come up on the radar.

You want it fixed?, lobby for more police.

Banjo.

You need to offer stats and links before making claims (not that I'm really interested) that the authorities are more interested in roosters than people. If what you claim (without proof) is true then instead of assuming they don't care you should figure out why they don't act on it. Maybe the mutilations (I had to look up FGM because you didn't offer meaning) happen overseas before they come here (assuming you're talking about imports, which I think you are). Maybe there's a balance between acting on reports and if doing so might put the practice and treatment underground which would pose further and greater risk to the females. At least at the moment these girls get medical treatment for a practice that is apparently the 'norm' for some cultures. Education, not persecution is the best way to combat that, IMHO.

Cock fight prosecutions probably come from wider investigations into criminal activity. They seem interwoven...

SIG,
I do not need to give stats and figures. I am giving my opinion and you obviously did not spend long looking up FGM, judging by your ignorance of the issue. You are simply making excuses for Government inaction and hypocracy.

These are Aussie born girls that are being mutilated! One Sydney hospital alone has a specific department to treat patients with post FGM problems and they treat 50 a year For at least 14 years there has been education and still FGM is carried out. The last correspondence I received from the NSW Minister for Health it was stated that there were (wait for it) 'cultural considerations' Can you believe this, pieces of flesh are being hacked off Aussie girls, most likely on kitchen tables, and the Government is concerned about cultural issues,

There are no stats for FGM prosecutions because there have been no prosecutions yet we regularly see reports of cockfight raids. Go figure that.

Ludwig is right about Government hypocracy. Turning a blind eye to beach nudity is one and a blind eye to FGM is another glaring example.

On the subject of anomalies in law enforcement, over a 3 month period I reported to the police the number plates of a car driven by some youths that were trying to yank a street sign off a pole one night and a ute driven by a drunk that nearly ran me down at a zebra crossing because he didn't see me (I know this because he stopped to kindly tell how lucky I was, as he was "Bliiiind!").

The cops were quick to get back to me on the pole incident asking me if I wanted to go to court etc etc. But not a boo about the drunk driver.

Now you'd think the drunk driver would have got the treatment, but no. The problem here is that path-of-least-resistance policing is going on: that is, if it's too hard, they just ignore it. They keep their gunpowder dry for hammering those easy targets who do a little bit wrong.

Banjo i may have talked through this once with you before... Genital mutilation doesn't require a gender prefix: It affects both sexes....in fact male genital mutilation is far more common. It's hypocritical to mention about FGM while deliberately refusing to mention MGM. Next time just say cicrumcision on any child, alright? This sexism does you no good at all.

Steel,
I know you have an obsesseion with male circumcission but if i chose to show FGM as a seperate unlawful practice I will. OK!

FGM is shown on this thread as another example of Government hypocracy in ignoring an unlawful practice, instead of upholding the existing law or changing it. Government hypocracy was the basis of Ludwig's original thread. I would like others to show more examples as there must be many.

I don't have an obsession with it. It's more that you have some quirky, sexist obsession with female circumcision and i am compelled to call you on it.

Steel,
You have demonstrated your obsession with male circumsission by barging in with your views on other threads where FGM was discussed. You could start a thread on the matter yourself.

I believe you to be an obsessed dropkick and I should not have even replied to your post after the comments you made about huffnpuff. It won't happen again.

“God, lighten up. Who gives a toss?”

StG, do you really think that blatant contradictions in what is written in law and what we are told is the go by police and government…and what is practiced, policed and accepted by the authorities and community, are acceptable at any time, anywhere, in any context….. or are so trivial that we shouldn’t worry about them or debate them on OLO?

This slackness in government is a very important aspect of our law and liberties. Isn’t it?

BTW, lots of guys give a toss on nude beaches, sometimes very blatantly so. If they get reported to the cops, should they be busted?

The poor old police…what are they supposed to do? If someone gets reported for nudity on an unofficial nude beach, are they obligated to act? Or is it alright for them to tell the complainant to go get a life and stop being a prude…and laugh them out of the police station? If someone reports a bloke for massaging his erection while lying in a non-threatening pose on an unofficial nude beach, are they obligated to act? If someone complains about one person, are they supposed to go down to the beach and arrest every poor bare-bummed sod who is just lying around harmlessly… and who has been doing so every weekend for yonks with no problem?

If they allow one brazen illegal activity, then how can they police anything else that might occur on a nude beach?

What the hell is acceptable and what isn’t?

I agree that the shortage of police is a big issue. But that is no excuse for the government not tightening up some of the glaring duplicities between the law and condoned activities. In fact, it is another major short-coming of the government. The shortage of police and the consequent erosion of law enforcement and respect for the law is just one of several major ways in which our illustrious state and federal governments have failed terribly to keep basic services up to a rapidly growing population, despite excellent economic times.

Most people will now know from reading my posts that I am a Born Again Christian, and a nudist. I'm not going to justify being both here, because I have already done that.

In the church I have heard a lot of myths about the nudist movement, mostly from people who know nothing about it.

When a number of beaches were formally made legal for nude bathing in 1997, One of Fred Nile's main concerns were that families could no longer use these beaches and any body who was on one of these beaches wearing clothes would be told to leave. This is not true (Fred Nile has obviously never been to a nude beach). Everywhere in NSW where there is a nude beach, there is an alternative beach available for non nudists. Nude beaches are generally difficult to access, and a long distance from car parking facilities. It's hardly likely that a non nudist family would want to go to one of those beaches anyway. As far as people wearing clothes on nude beaches, many nudists have family members who don't wish to go nude, especially with women and teenage children. These people are welcome to wear swimming costumes. The only clothed people who would be asked to leave a nude beach are people causing problems, (ie harrassing nudists).

It's down to the discretion of the officers. If someone comes in complaining about how offensive some nudity on a beach is to them they'll prioritise depending on the day they're having. IF they're FLATOUT like most days with criminal activity involving threat to life they'll slot your nudity down the list.

If someone is masturbating in the sand dunes over a family with young nude daughters they'll obviously do something with that and while they're there they'll advise the family about the law regarding nudity on public beaches.

I get the feeling you guys have NO IDEA how chocked up the courts are...

“It's hardly likely that a non nudist family would want to go to one of those beaches anyway.”

This appears to be true most of the time, Steel Mann. But it certainly isn’t at Balding Bay, Magnetic Island.

I was there yesterday and I’ve been there a number of times this year. There were many clothed family groups, women, children and adolescent girls, along with a host of naked men and a few naked women. I didn’t see the slightest sign of any problem, or any thrill factor or pervert mentality. They all just coexisted in beautiful harmony. Just an interesting observation, that’s all.

"It's hardly likely that a non nudist family would want to go to one of those beaches anyway.”

Ludwig, I mightn't have made myself clear. I was referring to nude beaches in Sydney, and suggesting that if these beaches were not nude beaches, families probably wouldn't go to them anyway as they are difficult to access. They are a long way from car parking facilities, and there are other beaches nearby which are much easier to get to.

I'm not familiar with Balding Bay on Magnetic Island.

It's important to have legal nude beaches, as if this makes it easier for nudists to report inappropriate behaviour to the police. At beaches where nude bathing is is not officially approved, but tolerated, it is difficult for nudists to complain about inappropriate behaviour as technically, they too are breaking the law.

Perverted behaviour at nude beaches is rare, as the nudists generally make these people uncomfortable by staring at them, and they soon leave.

Nude beaches are generally cleaner and safer. Nudists tend to be honest. I can leave my clothing with my wallet containing cash, and have never had any problems with anything being stolen. This cannot be said for normal beaches. I have never seen discarded syringes on nude beaches and there is not a lot of rubbish, despite the fact that very few nude beaches have bins.

Dear Steel Mann,

I'm curious.

What's it like to swim in the ocean nude?

A friend told me the water felt like velvet.

Is it true?

Foxy,

What does it feel like to have a bath or shower nude? Swimming feels very similar. The best part is that when you get out of the water you don't have a dripping wet costume that clings to you and feels very uncomfortable. Not having pockets can be a bit of a problem, but coming to think of it, not many swimming costumes have pockets either.

The best answer to your question is Foxy, wait until the weather warms up and try it for yourself.

I went to a nude beach in Sydney and there was all sorts of sexual behaviour going on in the bushes on the way. Was fine on the beach though.

'On the other hand, I’ve seen young women and families with small kids in the close presence of naked men without any concern at all being shown. So if this is the general case, then why can’t all beaches be clothing optional? '

I wonder ludwig, why one would only be concerned about young women and families with small children seeing naked men? Why not naked women? Actually why naked anyone?

I agree many laws are Claytons Laws, but serve a very useful purpose. For example; I'm all in favour of keeping marijuana illegal. That way, teenagers can do something naughty, that police will normally only give them a slap on the wrist for. Make it legal, and more teenagers will be pressured by their peers to use it, and speed will be the new marijuana. Then legalise speed, and ice is the new speed.
It's all very practical.

I'm also happy to give the Police some room to use their common sense, rather than turning them into drones with no option but to rigourously enforce all the intricate explicit laws the state attempts (badly) to make to cover every eventuality.

I'm more than happy for a police officer to see people blatantly breaking a law, with no obvious victim or anyone being adversely affected, to turn a blind eye.

If I dont stop for exactly 3 seconds at a stop sign in a deserted town at 3AM with no traffic for miles, I would be disappointed if a police car waiting in the shadows with lights off booked me.

Foxy, I grew up on a farm near the mountains and a skinny dip in a cool mountain stream on a hot day takes some beating.

At a guess the experience will be different for most people but as a safe intro take your next shower or bath in bathers and see if it's as nice as your normal. I've not worked out if the difference is as marked for women as men as a lot more nudists seem to be men. Is it the plumbing or social attitudes that drive that difference?

R0bert

Dear RObert,

A cool mountain stream in summer sounds
like bliss.

My ancestry is from a land that was noted
for its luscious forests, beautiful orchards,
plentiful lakes, and fertile soil.

So perhaps that's where I get this "call of
the wild."

Anyway, as Steel Mann suggests, I will have to
try it some time, given the opportunity.

Cant say I know of a committed christian Steel who runs around with no clothes on?
You sure youre not a One World Church plant?

"Cant say I know of a committed christian ... who runs around with no clothes on?"

Gibo you probably know committed christians who do so but given your extremist intollerant views of those who don't conform to the way you think they should be it's unlikely that they will tell you about it.

Like many of the issues fundies get so bothered by there is little in the bible which directly supports an anti-nudity stance and it's really a matter of grasping at interpretations to find indirect support for that stance.

R0bert

Lived on 320 beautiful acres as a child. Small creek joined the three dams.The maximum we wore was shorts and they were gone when we needed to cool off. Years later I swam in the Fly River, PNG. The local girls loved to join us young blokes. Nobody cared that we were all nude. Forty years ago putting on swimming togs would have been dressing up for the local girls. They dressed up for their dances, reed skirt on the bottom only and a few bits of white paint for appearence.
Now in Australia the only people to notice nudity appear to be adults. Children accept (generally) without question and so they should if they are safe and feel safe. My children werent raised with bad thoughts of their or other peoples bodies.
And not so long ago I lived in an Asian country where brothels are illegal. Surprisingly that was where you could buy genuine scotch whisky and other sought after beverages. Yes the girls solicited on the streets even when my wife was with me.
So what does it all mean. Perhaps there are laws that are enacted to keep a vocal minority quiet. Those who are losing the battle with gravity should accept their age and coverup and shutup if they cant accept the fact that nobody really cares how they look. I am yet to hear a real complaint about nice bodies male or female. Lights out entertainment in public is a different subject. Please dont be offended if I fail to notice your nudity, I just dont care.
Angryant47

“I wonder ludwig, why one would only be concerned about young women and families with small children seeing naked men? Why not naked women? Actually why naked anyone?””

Usual Suspect, no one should be concerned about seeing anyone else naked….in the right setting. It wouldn’t be appropriate in a school, a supermarket or in parliament. But on just about any beach or at any swimming hole, it should be.

“I agree many laws are Claytons Laws, but serve a very useful purpose. For example; I'm all in favour of keeping marijuana illegal. That way, teenagers can do something naughty, that police will normally only give them a slap on the wrist for. Make it legal, and more teenagers will be pressured by their peers to use it, and speed will be the new marijuana. Then legalise speed, and ice is the new speed.”

The trouble with this is that many young people are left not knowing which is the most important; the law or peer pressure. They’ll very often choose peer pressure, as the chance of them getting into trouble with the law for smoking dope is pretty damn small. Then one day they’ll run foul of the law for doing what they’ve been doing without any problem for ages…and they’ll have a hefty fine and maybe a police record to deal with. It could undermine their efforts to get a uni degree or the career they are after and really stuff them around.

It is an interesting point of debate, US, but no, I don’t think Clayton’s laws have got any merit. We all need to know exactly where we stand with the law. The rule of law needs to be asserted and effectively policed.

continued

“I'm more than happy for a police officer to see people blatantly breaking a law, with no obvious victim or anyone being adversely affected, to turn a blind eye.”

If a particular illegal activity can be undertaken with no victim or adverse consequences, then it shouldn’t be illegal under those circumstances. That particular statutory law should be amended to reflect this.

I don’t like the notion of police having huge discretionary powers. Some discretion yes, but sweeping powers to choose to turn a blind eye or to crucify someone for just the same misdemeanour can lead to all sorts of problems of unfair policing, prejudice, racism, or the perception in the community that the police are unfair in these ways.

“If I dont stop for exactly 3 seconds at a stop sign in a deserted town at 3AM with no traffic for miles, I would be disappointed if a police car waiting in the shadows with lights off booked me.”

No doubt you would be. But this happens. Most drivers don’t stop at stop signs if they don’t have to. If they can clearly see that there is no traffic in their way as they approach an intersection, they just go ahead. The cops accept this just about all the time [well, in my part of the world they do]. In fact, they have effectively trained drivers to do this by way of their inaction. Then, once in a blue moon, they’ll sit on some corner and book every driver who doesn’t come to a stationary position. Many people who are good careful drivers and who think they understand the relevant law as accepted by the community and policed as such, get booked.

How do you think that reflects on the police and respect for the law?

The answer to this particular issue is to change practically every confounded stop sign to a giveway sign. In other words, to bring the law into line with accepted practice…...and to make sure the policing regime is consistent and in line with the law, so people know what is acceptable and what isn’t.

Gibo,

You say you don't know of a committed Christian who runs around with no clothes on. Well, I don't run around with no clothes on all that often. I usually relax at nudist venues.

Gibo, you say you don't know any Christian nudists, or do you just not know they are nudist? For that matter, how many nudists (regardless of religion) do you know? The only Christian nudists I know are those I've met through the nudist movement. Do a Google search on Fig Leaf Forum and see for yourself how large the Christian Nudist movement worldwide is.

Incidentally Gibo, once I was at a nudist club, and someone from my church turned up. On another occasion a laspsed Christian turned up at our nudist club, because he wanted to find something to do where there wouldn't be any Christians. He chose the wrong club for that purpose, but nevertheless we encouraged him and he rededicated his life to God.

No, I'm not part of the One World Church plant. I am just a simple Christian attending a small Pentecostal Church who reads my Bible and puts what I believe into practice rather than telling others how to live.

Ludwig,

You just cant legislate for every eventuality. So you want 10 different stop/Give Way signs for different situations? The parking signs are hard enough to read, some of them have 5 different time zones included. It's micro-managing the community. Governments do it to justify their own existence.

Governments are chasing their tales because the plebs are demanding the government to fix their every woe. It's impossible to pass laws for every eventuality and all human behaviour. The Nanny state is a failure. It breeds people who take no responsibility for their own lives, and have no respect for themselves. It also disempowers people who have an ounce of common sense.

Usual Suspect,
I do not think that anyone expects our legislators to make laws for every eventuality, but not to have laws they are not prepared to uphold.

From posts here it seems that public nudity is against the law but is ignored. I think the government has 3 options.

1. Uphold the present laws.

2. Declare all beaches 'clothing optional'.

3. Legislate that some beaches be 'clothing optional' and leave this reponsibility to Local Government to determine which and where.

It is hypocritical for Government to ignor breaches of the present laws and it leaves the system open for abuse if only some people are charged and others not.

In my state prostitution is legal in designated locations and LG has that responsibility. That seems to work without too many hassles. Similar could be implemented for beach nudity.

“You just cant legislate for every eventuality”

Of course we can’t, US. I’m not suggesting we can. But we certainly can do a whole lot better in terms of tightening the law and its enforcement.

As for giveway signs, they should universally replace stop signs. You don’t need different versions in different situations. The one standard sign serves the universal purpose. Really it does! The purpose of a stop sign is to alert a driver to the need to give way. There should be no requirement to stop!

You seem to think that I’m advocating a much more complicated system of law enforcement. Well, quite to the contrary. If we all understood the law and had confidence that it applied at face value, and if the policing regime was up to the task of engendering that confidence, the whole business would be a lot simpler to live with.

The second half of your post is repeated from another. So I’ll answer it there http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7544#118559

Yep Banjo, the solution to Queensland's nude beach legal hypocrisy really is simple.

“It is hypocritical for Government to ignor breaches of the present laws and it leaves the system open for abuse if only some people are charged and others not.”

Absolutely!

Ludwig, Banjo,

You've convinced me. I suppose I am just arguing for Banjo's option 2. Then Police use existing obscenity laws for any bad behaviour.

'but not to have laws they are not prepared to uphold.'
Yep. Like watering your back garden with water restrictions in place. It relies on a neighbour dobbing you in, and you allowing the police (Who assumedly have nothing better to do) into your house without a warrant. Not very likely.

But I suppose, like my example about the marijuana, it creates a community taboo, and DOES modify behaviour. With marijuana, the illegality aids resistance of peer pressure, even though it's not really that harmful or serious. With water restriction, it's about social condemnation.

Ludwig,

'If a particular illegal activity can be undertaken with no victim or adverse consequences, then it shouldn’t be illegal under those circumstances'

This is what I'm talking about in the other thread. No activity can have NO possible victim or NO possible consequence, but all our laws have this zero attitude to risk. The 80yo grandmother in the mosh pit. The Outlawing of Christmas pagent at schools for the one jewish child like in South Park:-)

See I bet if they wanted to legalise a nude beach, there would be 1 person who would say their rights had been violated even if 99% of people either couldn't care or wanted to go nude. That's the reason for your loose laws.

But notice, the community has taken the law into their own hands, and democratically the majority of nudists have made a beach their own, ignoring the protestations of the troublemaking wowser. Most wowsers have found another beach, and most nudists have left other beaches. The community has sorted itself out.

So do you give the few remaining wowsers a stage to waste time and money and generate conflict, or use the law to spoil this equalibrium?. Or do you get the police to use their common sense and pretend to do something every now and then, arrest the odd person shagging in the bushes, to keep the odd wowser happy?

Perhaps US, if the police could be relied on to always use their discretionary powers wisely, and for the community to be confident that they did this, then ‘loose’ laws might be much more acceptable to me.

But blatantly hypocritical laws such as nude beaches existing all over the place and being condoned by the police and everyone else, while being totally illegal, will never find acceptance in my headspace.

Notice in my following post that even a magistrate has a solid dig at the poor use of police discretion.

You little beauty. At last some common sense in this debate is prevailing amongst our illustrious leaders!

http://www.news.com.au/travel/story/0,26058,23658617-5014090,00.html

Sunshine Coast Mayor Bob Abbot said he would not oppose a clothing-optional beach north of Brisbane, which would be the state’s first legal nudist beach.

Both Premier Anna Bligh and Police Minister Judy Spence said that they would not stand in the way.

The amendment of State legislation would be needed. But that now appears not to be a problem.

The police got a bucketing for exercising victimisation and double standards from a magistrate Barry Barrett, when they charged a nudist. The man although guilty of the offence, had the charges dismissed, presumably as a result of the grossly unfair policing regime.

So it looks like the current hopeless state of accepted but illegal nude beaches and an absurd policing regime associated with it is finally set to improve in Queensland. And about time!

Ludwig,
This'll be good for tourism too. Nudists do more than just skinny dip. Eventually even nudists need to put on clothes. They will stay at local hotels or caravan parks. They will eat food in restaurants and cafes. They will spend money in shops and put petrol in their cars. They will visit other local tourist attractions. Some of them (Gibo take note) will even attend local churches on Sunday, (And contribute to the collection).

Yes it would be good for tourism, So it begs the question; why hasn’t our state government legalised it and allowed to become widespread?

It makes no sense, given that the government, no matter who the incumbents are, is totally pro-tourism and the economic growth that it generates.

Strange indeed.